The Skeptics Society has retired Skepticblog (while preserving all posts online at their original urls for future reference), but we’re proud to announce our bigger, better new blog: INSIGHT at Skeptic.com! Dedicated to the spirit of curiosity and grounded in scientific skepticism’s useful, investigative tradition of public service, INSIGHT continues and exp […]

Some people say, "Oh, there's anti-science on both sides of the political aisle." But that neglects one important fact: in only ONE political party are the leadership and the party platform dominated by science denial.

Now it’s a bit hard to follow the video in some spots, so I’ll be providing the entire transcript of the video’s text below. Watching the video and a read through the transcript show pretty clearly that Kirk Cameron doesn’t have the first damn clue as to what he’s talking about. Hat tip to TechSkeptic at Effort Sisyphus for posting this originally…

Female Student: [Unintelligible] saying, “Origin of the Species! Go evolution!” So, when somebody —
Kirk: [Unintelligible]
FS: Yeah, you did, I heard you. And I was like, “What? Kirk Cameron’s believes in evolution?” Are you being ironic or –?
Kirk: No, I didn’t say “go evolution,” I took a picture and I said “Everyone say ‘Darwin’!” And I said “Darwin!”
FS: Oh, okay.
Kirk: I did say that.
FS: Okay. I’m sorry. But that’s not important. Anyways, so when a passerby is getting that book, and they don’t know about you, they haven’t seen your videos, and they don’t know who you are, they think, “Oh, okay, this is the book,” so when they read it, they’re not aware that the information is coming from a group that has a special interest in dissuading people from evolution.
Kirk: Okay. Okay, fair enough.
FS: It’s like hidden propaganda. Which you, like — atheists groups would never, like, hand out the Bible saying, like, “This is not true and this is all the scientific information” —
Male Student 1: I think you could have been more honest if [unintelligible].
Kirk: (to Female Student) Can I respond to what you’re saying?
Cameraman: (to MS1) Say it louder.
MS1: I think it would have been more honest you had just distributed the introduction by itself —
Kirk: I — I heard you earlier. (to FS) So, here’s my thought. I used to be — used to be an atheist, and studied evolution, and the Darwinian, the Neo-Darwinian [unintelligible], to the point where I’m, I’m convinced that it is not science, that Darwinism is atheism masquerading as science. That’s —
FS: Darwin wasn’t an atheist, actually. He was really hesitant to publish his work because he knew that it would go against the beliefs of, you know, the church.
Cameraman: And I kind of feel that’s undermining the faith of people who do accept evolution and who are Christian.
Kirk: (ignoring Cameraman, to FS) Well, why do you believe that?
FS: Because he has journals and because, like, you know, he took a long time — it wasn’t ’til Wallace said, like, “Hey, check this out!” and he’s like “Oh, boy,” you know, “I should probably publish what I’m doing.”
Kirk: Okay, have you heard… Okay. Here’s, here’s, here’s the other important…um…(lengthy pause) I believe that Darwin was absolutely…that the end game was to make God…was to remove God from…the, the worldview of… I think that that was his end game. Um. And if you read — I don’t know if you’ve read the introduction in here, yet.
FS: No, I have not yet. But I will.
Kirk: You’ll find things you maybe haven’t read before.
FS: I probably have never read what you wrote, no.
Kirk: In my, my… I think that it is…very, uh… dishonest, and extremely —
Trumpet: “When The Saints Go Marching In”
Kirk: — for, for…for teachers, in the name of science, to push an atheistic worldview. Which — and they use Darwin in order to do it.
FS: I don’t understand how… you’re combining atheism — because not all scientists are atheists, like, I would not say I’m an atheist.
Kirk: Yes, alright, but —
FS: But I, I, I…
Male Student 2: Francis Collins.
FS: Yeah.
Cameraman: I bet he knows about that.
FS: I don’ t understand [unintelligible]. Why is science an atheistic endeavor? I don’t understand that.
Kirk: Okay, let me —
FS: I don’t understand the problem.
Kirk: Why is science an atheistic endeavor?
FS: Yeah, and why is — particularly, um —
Kirk: You have to ask [unintelligible] of atheism being taught in the science classes to answer that question. I mean, look at Dawkins, for instance, look at Dawkins —
FS: I love Dawkins.
Kirk: …okay, so —
FS: But other science —
Kirk: But if you look at those who are the loudest proponents for, uh, Darwinism, and evolution, you’ll find that they are absolutely on the mission to demonstrate that God is irrelevant and doesn’t exist. And they’re atheists.
FS: What Dawkins argues is that God and science should not be in the same argument, because science is based on evidence, whereas religion is based on faith. And so —
Kirk: So is Darw —
FS: They don’t explain…
Kirk: But Darwinism is extremely based on faith, not on evidence.
FS: Not really, it’s based on a lot of evidence. He made, he made assertions that were based on faith, he didn’t have evidence for yet, but he had a lot of evidence. Later on now, scientists are, you know, doing research. And in fact, current scientific thought doesn’t accept, uh, plain Darwinian evolution. In fact now, there’s like a lot of different, uh…
Cameraman: It expanded over the years.
Kirk: Sure.
FS: It expanded, so —
Cameraman: Especially with genetics and that sort of thing.
FS: Yeah. So Darwin was the basis, but it is not, uh, what actual evolutionary biologists, you know, uh… go with. And in science, there’s no like “Okay, this is the FINAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH,” it’s always changing because —
Kirk: Correct.
FS: You know, all the evidence either against it, or that should show different things.
Kirk: So, what… so, what — I understand that — so, so I’m pro-science, I love science.
FS: Why not this specific branch of it? Because —
Kirk: Which branch are you referring to?
FS: I’m referring to biology.
Kirk: I love biology.
FS: Except the part where it says that — do you believe in micro-evolution?
Kirk: Are we talking about, um, adaptation?
FS: Yeah, that’s why you get a different vaccine every year because —
Kirk: Yes.
FS: — you know — okay.
Kirk: Yes, but to extrapolate that into speciation and macro-evolution by saying it takes lots of time —
FS: No, not if you accept, not if you accept that it does take — okay, so if you believe in micro-evolution, you believe that it continues happening, it just doesn’t happen in like, two minutes and then it’s done, it continues happening. The Earth is not six thousand years old, and even if it were six thousand years old, in that span of time, continuous micro-evolution would have added up to something, right? Even if you believe the literal Biblical, uh, idea that the Earth is not old, it would’ve still added up. Not to what we have here…
Kirk: Do, do you — I understand what you’re saying, [unintelligible] I think that they do change over time, but we don’t, but we don’t see speciation as a result of adaptation. We don’t see —
FS: Because we don’t have enough time. And in fact they are —
Kirk: Okay, but you have to, but you then have to concede, though, that that’s a presupposition that you’re assuming that it happened, even though we don’t have enough time to observe it.
FS: Well, it’s not — it’s because of geological evidence. What happens in science, is you bring different branches of knowledge together, and it’s not, it’s not isolated. You don’t just say, like, “Okay, biology proves it.” Because biology doesn’t prove anything. There’s evidence that there’s a biological process, but combining that with geology, physics, and —
MS2: Astronomy.
FS: Other sciences — astronomy, yeah.
MS2: They all agree.
FS: Then you, you combine that knowledge, right? And that’s how you think, like, “Okay, if this is happening now, and if we know that the Earth has been, you know, this old and this, like, many changes have happened” — all of this knowledge, then you — it, it is a safe, logical assumption to make that conclusion. For instance say, like, “Micro-evolution has been happening for this long, and it’s added up.” Whereas with, uh, a belief in a certain faith, particularly in this case the, the Christian persuasion, all the evidence that you have is based on the Bible, and that would be circular logic, because you think, “I believe in the Bible because the Bible says it’s written by God.” (draws a circle in the air) It doesn’t — there’s no outside body of evidence, there, there’s no conjecture —
Kirk: That’s not true.
FS: What other body —
Kirk; History, geology, cosmology, biology…
FS: So, okay, so history —
Cameraman: Do you mind if I ask you a question about geology, really quick?
Kirk: Hang on a second.
Cameraman: Okay, sure.
FS: How does history disprove evolution?
Kirk: How does history disprove evolution?
FS: Yes.
Kirk: Well, I didn’t say history disproves evolution, I said that history —
FS: Okay. Then give me another line of evidence other than the Bible that disproves evolution.
Kirk: Um, I would say evolution disproves — D, Dar — I would — (pauses) Evolution, talking about, we’re talking about speciation, I would say that, that…that Darwin’s theory, nor — and ANY theory — does not sufficiently, uh, account for speciation, apart from the existence of God. You don’t find the fossil record, you don’t find —
FS: Okay, what about the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees? Which are very similarly related, they just have —
Kirk: I’m not familiar with, what?
FS: Okay, bonobos are essentially chimpanzees, except they’re smaller, and they’re more, uh, friendly with each other. Whereas chimpanzees are, like, very aggressive —
[END OF VIDEO]

Joanaroosaid

Oy vey! I think Kirk Cameron should just stick to acting and his like-minded group. He seems to only put his foot deeper into the dung the more he tries to explain and he shouldn’t be trying to sway student’s opinions.